RobY Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 If you are, for instance, placing the meter probes at the neg battery terminal and the end of the neg battery cable (where it is grounded to the motor or chassis), and all the wires are still connected to the battery at both terminals, then you are measuring the sum of two parallel resistances. One resistance being measured is the obvious one, that between the neg battery terminal and the cable ground point. The other resistance path being measured is that between the neg battery terminal, through the battery plates, through the pos battery terminal, through whatever else is still in the circuit (e.g. radio memory, immobilizer, etc), and then back to the cable ground point. You should disconnect the cables from at least one of the battery posts before doing resistance measurements. This will also positively protect your ohmmeter from potential damage. Dangit... Ill wait till I flash to stg II I dont want to loose all my training... You are right though I am adding paralell circuts. But there is still no reason the resistance should be 2.4 ohms. Paralell resistances are not addative. Its inverse additive. The more circuts you connect in paralell the less resistance you have. If anything I should be reading naut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rao Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Can anyone name any piece of electronics that is grounded only through the engine? Rob IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 The alternator is grounded to the engine. Which is also a very important terminal ground point. Which is grounded to the chaisis. The ECU grounds to the chasis and most critical sensors ground to the ECU. I also beleive the water temp sensor is grounded directly to the engine. Grounding the motor directly might not be a bad idea to prevent ground noise from the alternator from spreading through the rest of the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rao Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 The alternator is definately attached to the engine. The coolant temp sensor is grounded at the ECU B136, pin 35. Rob IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firedawgs Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Ok, I went out and checked the Ohm reading with my Fluke meter. I have a 4 lead grounding mod and gold plated negative terminal post. All grounding points were .3 with the furthest lead reading .4ohm. I could not tell you what it was before, but .3-.4 is not bad. Updated my vBGarage: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iguanamafia Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 The photo of your multimeter shows that you have the meter set in diode-testing mode. The displayed value is in volts, not ohms. Take it off the diode setting, and set it at 200ohms, and then see what resistances you have in the ground wires. Well I verified that I didn't extra click my multimeter on all my ground checks, and I did achieve <.05 ohms at every check. I did do a few battery to chassis checks through different areas and for the most part I got low readings. If I tried to ground through a galvanized screw or other piece of hardware the readings were elevated. So.. If someone could get some stock ground readings to duplicate Roby's readings. Looking for: battery (-) to stock ground point Battery (-) to passenger strut tower bolt battery (-) to intake manifold any combination of these points Thanks Iggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoss Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Guys, I just read this post and it was interesting. I really think you guys are wasting a lot of time here (just my opinion). First off, as mentioned earlier, you need to disconnect the battery before measuring anything. You meter is trying to force a current and measure a voltage and come up with a resistance for you (Ohms law). If you have current flowing in that loop ( clock, computer etc) the readings will be WRONG.... Also, as a side note you would think that adding ground loops can't hurt anything but could only either help or have no affect. This is not true. By adding extra ground points you create extra ground loops that can act as antennas to pick up noise from other sources. You might run the risk of adding noise into the ground path (very possible) that will cause the ECU problems. I would really leave things as they are. The Subaru engineers know there stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted September 15, 2005 Author Share Posted September 15, 2005 It may seem that way but people who have actually made well researched and designed grounding systems to thier cars have had a positive effect. Especially with older generations of subarus. If we do a search on NASIOC many people not just a few nutbags claimed that proper grounding has in fact releived some of the hesitation and little quirks in thier subaru. Im sure subaru engineers know thier stuff but sometimes comapny execs don't. An extreme case in the the story of the Ford Pinto. The engineers wanted Ford to put a impact resistant fuel bladder into the tank because of its location. The execs said no because it would cost too much. The total purchase and installation cost of the bladder would have been $5.08 per car. That $5.08 per car could have saved the lives of several hundred innocent people. The execs knew this so they decided to place a value on human life. Ford's cost-benefit analysis valued those lives at a mere $200,000 apiece. That number was calculated by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration at the request of the auto industry, mainly on the basis of lost wages, plus medical and legal costs and a small amount for pain and suffering. At $200,000 per head, 180 deaths are "worth" $36 million, not nearly enough to "justify" a $137 million expenditure. I know this is an extreme case but just because subaru CAN make a car with PERFECT grounding dosent mean that they will. Grounding instrumentation to the closest chassis point they can find is the most cost effective way to wire a car. This makes the entire car an antenna. One of my friends is big into car audio. I know for a fact that people would either correct poor ground points in thier car or run a straight shot from the amp to the battery if they were experiencing ground noise. By correcting places of poor resistance and equalizing the chasis it would solve many of the artifacts in thier audio system. I will disconnect the battery and test again and attempt to engineer a system. You are right though I didn't account for the minute current coming through from the always hot circuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoss Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Yeah, but are you really comparing a Japanese company to an American one?? My biggest complaint about american cars (other than the fact that they produce crap) is that they dont' stand behind their cars. American car companies are lazy and they will save money whenever they can. I don't feel Japanese companies think that way and that is a very good thing. They have a different culture (dare I say better??). How many recalls did I get on my Honda for stupid little stuff?? Quite a few. They stand behind their safety and reliability even when it means spending money. American car companies don't. Just look at Chrysler and the stupid back door thing on the vans. It is pathetic. The only reason amierican car companies are still around is because people will buy crap just to say they are "americans"... That gives the american car companies the lazy excuse to keep building crap. Anyway, don't get me started on that............ So anyway, I did hear about the pinto thing. It was covered in my engineering ethics class in college.......... I dont' think the grounding will change anything. If it was a grounding problem we would see lots and lots of wierd things happending, not just some studdering which I really believe is more likely a software bug. Also, you do have the potential for ground loop return noise problems if you start adding loops. Just my thoughts. I will look forward to seeing what you find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rporter Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Getting way off topic here..... I don't believe that Pinto story. The Pinto was actually a very good ride when introduced. Gas tank placements were not a topic at all in the late '60s early '70s. the Pinto was no better or worse than any other car on the market. WRT the grounding issue, this is something that the engineers of any car company slave over. I don't believe that a new model has an issue. As time goes on and corrosion sets in....sure. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted September 15, 2005 Author Share Posted September 15, 2005 Getting way off topic here..... I don't believe that Pinto story. The Pinto was actually a very good ride when introduced. Gas tank placements were not a topic at all in the late '60s early '70s. the Pinto was no better or worse than any other car on the market. WRT the grounding issue, this is something that the engineers of any car company slave over. I don't believe that a new model has an issue. As time goes on and corrosion sets in....sure. Whats not the beleive about the pinto story. There is plenty of NHTSA and court documentation to prove that was the case. Dang I thought everybody knew about it http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?did=522&scid=145 If you want you can follow the citations to the primary sources. http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHprint/v027n2/p0390-p0401.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rporter Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Revisionist history....or the "Ralph Nader Piling On Effect". The Pinto has no better nor worse a gas tank placement than other cars of the era. There have also been lawsuits about the Malibu of that age.Not to mention the Chevy pickup tanks, and even the current BS about the CV cop car tanks. Sorry, but getting rear-ended in a stopped car at 70 mph and have the gas tank burst into flames is NOT a safety defect. I worked at a Ford dealership in '69 & '71 when I was home from school. Some of my favorite cars to drive were the 2.0 liter Pintos with 4-speeds. They weren't the most powerful cars, but were way high on the "fun to drive" scale. they were also well-received by the public. All of the gas tank BS came later.....and yes, it is BS. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted September 15, 2005 Author Share Posted September 15, 2005 Ok im listening... how is it BS? You have to understand. Its a pretty powerful case when there are OFFICAL court documents and federal NHTSA information supporting this claim. There is MORE than enough information that this car had a much higher propensity to blow up when hit from behind than other cars in the era. Im not saying it was a "bad driving car" Im saying that it might be somewhat unsafe. I mean excuse me for being a little bit skeptical... but if you can provide some primary sources that this information is in fact wrong I would be happy to look at it and revise my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iguanamafia Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 I disconnected the battery on my Pinto and got the same readings as I did before with it connected... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rporter Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Oh please.....NHTSA, Center For Auto Safety, Ralph Nader, Mother Jones magazine.....c'mon!! The court cases were civil suits. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. See my "Piling On" comment above. Ford caught the same flack for the CV cop car tanks but it did a better defense this time. As did GM with the bogus BS on the saddle tanks. And Audi on "Unintended Acceleration". Ram a couple of LGTs in the back, have them catch fire, and watch the legal vultures come around. Guess I've been around long enough to remember the crap on the Pinto as well as other cars since then. Well, even back before then with the Nader BS on the Corvair. Believe what you want. And if you beleve that Ralphie and his buddies at NHTSA and the other related bureaucracies are out for the truth, I have a bridge or two to sell you. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted September 16, 2005 Author Share Posted September 16, 2005 Well im willing to listen. Unless there are tests that show that the pinto was just as survivable in a rear end collision as other cars in the era I have to tend to err on the other side. There are plenty of documents and objective tests to show that it was not up to the standard even back in the day. Im trying to be objective here. Im not trying to give anybody a hard time. Why don't you share with us the information that nobody knows. Im trying to understand here because there is always a reason why people think the way they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenonk Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 the point is that you can do whatever you want on the car, if you feel that you want to gain some hp by doing a grounding mod, then do so (as it has been proven from various JDM companies that are serious into racing and making sure their cars are sufficiently grounded to give the best performance). There IS nothing wrong leaving the car stock, but there isn't anything wrong with minimizing power loss either. To keep things back on track, if you think it's a hoax, don't do it, allow others to make their own choice to do the ground mod or not. Not that it matters in this opinionated thread but I, for one, do believe the GT is fine in stock form. If you do plan to add more electronics and other electrical mods, a grounding system/mod is a good addition. Do some "JDM" race research and find out a few things. If you really want to dyno the car out and find out which grounding kit is the best or if it does anything, then do it and prove people wrong. Keefe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rporter Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 There are plenty of documents and objective tests to show that it was not up to the standard even back in the day. I dont care to continue with this. Bur with regard to your statement above, I'll point you right back to your second quote from Post #37: http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcw...p0390-p0401.pdf The first gas tank standard was in 1977, and it was 30 mph. The Pinto was no better nor worse than other cars of the era. Ford just got the shaft from the safety nazis. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alegacy Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 To add to the 'Ralphie' thread.. he got interested in the Corvair because his neighbor who drove him to work crashed several of them, and was quite hurt in one crash. No one ever mentions that his neighbor was legally BLIND, or that Ralphie rode with him because he DID NOT hold a drivers license. My take on what sunk the Pinto investigations.. Some engineer interviewed discussed that Ford saw a problem in the filler neck that could have contributed to the explosion factor, but at $0.13 per car, declined to modify the design, as it was too expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jj808 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Can we please get this thread back on the "grounding of the Legacy" rails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGT Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Can we please get this thread back on the "grounding of the Legacy" rails? Please. Start a new thread on anything offtopic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zennoodle Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 This is a very interesting thread sans the spat that happened in the middle. I've been googling all night and trying to do research on parallel vs series connecting points. I'm completely confused how a parallel system could be achieved in a car's engine bay without actually have a series of points aka daisy chaining it all. Everybody had valid points. I'm curious for more info! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outahere Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 ........... I'm curious for more info! Do a search at nasioc.com and you will find dozens of threads on grounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wongmic75 Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 Subscribed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zennoodle Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 Do a search at nasioc.com and you will find dozens of threads on grounding. I just like to hear from Legacy owners...some of these findings (on the thread) are more mature and scientifically sound. I'd like to hear more from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.